Privy Council Court March 1935 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijaysingji Chhatrasingji Vs. Shivsangji Bhimsanji
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Sir Shadi Lal: The property, which is the subject-matter of the dispute in this appeal, is an impartible taluqdari estate called Ahima estate. It is situated in the Kaira District of the Bombay Presidency, and the parties are agreed that the succession to the estate is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, and that females are excluded from inheritance. The relationships of the persons concerned in the dispute is shown in the following pedigree table : Himatsangji died in 1888, leaving him surviving two sons, Chandrasangji and Bhimsangji. The elder son, Chandrasangji, inherited the entire impartible estate, while the younger son, Bhimsangji, received only maintenance. In April 1899, Chandrasangji died, and was succeeded by his son, Chhatrasingji. On 2nd August 1915, Chhatrasingji was adopted by the widow of one Kunwarsahib Bapusahib, the proprietor of the impartible estate of Bhamaria,' which is a larger estate than the Ahima estate. Though Chhatrasingji was, at that time, a ma...
Patel Chhotabhai and Others Vs. Jnan Chandra Basak and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-05-1935
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated 12th June 1929 which affirmed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Banares, dated 30th November 1926. The litigation relates to a dispute between the plaintiffs and the added defendants on the one hand and the first three defendants on the other, with regard to certain property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. All the parties are followers of the Radha Swami religion and the questions relating to the said property involve the consideration of the doctrines, tenets and principles of that religion, which are of vital importance to them and are of great interest to any student of theology. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs (one of whom, viz., Patel Chota Bhai has died since the initiation of the suit) who alleged that they were followers of the true faith of the said religion against Jnan Chandra Basak, Anand Sarup and the Radha Swami Satsang Sabha, a registered body thr...
Atmaram Abhimanji Vs. Bajirao Janrao and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Sir Shadi Lal: The question of law, which arises in this appeal, is one of considerable importance and relates to the exact scope of the expression samanodaka as used in the Hindu law of inheritance. The facts bearing upon the question do not admit of any dispute. The property, which is in dispute between the parties, belonged to one Manikrao who died in October 1916. The plaintiffs are descended in the male line from one Tulsingh, who was an ancestor of Manikrao in the 22nd degree. They claimed the estate on the ground that they were entitled to succeed to it as the agnates of the deceased in preference to the defendant, Atmaram, who was his father's sister's son. The trial Judge negatived their claim, but on appeal his judgment was reversed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces and Berar, who have held that the plaintiffs come within the purview of the term samanodaka and have priority over the defendant who, being only a bandhu, cannot succeed in the presence ...
King-emperor Vs. Dahu Raut
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Lord Thankerton: These are consolidated appeals by special leave from four judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated respectively 29th May, 29th May, 31st May and 7th June 1933, which reduced the sentences passed on the respective respondents by the respective criminal Courts of first instance on 25th March, 28th February, 1st April and 18th March 1933. In each case the respective respondents presented petitions of appeal to the High Court against both the conviction and the sentence, in exercise of the statutory right conferred on them by the Criminal Procedure Code, and the question in the present appeals is whether the orders of the High Court in each of the four cases, by which the sentences were reduced, were in conformity with the requirements of the Code. The Crown, as appellant, maintains that the orders were passed in violation of the statutory provisions and were beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Crown desires to test the validity ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›